Talk:Filipino people: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Wtmitchell (talk | contribs) →Lead para in the Genetic studies section: Response & proposal. |
→top: redirect doesn't need importance ranking |
||
| (93 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
||
{{ |
{{ethnic groups|importance= }} <!-- Formerly assessed as B-class --> |
||
{{ethnic groups|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archives |
{{archives |
||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== Revert adding sports figures to the infobox photo == |
|||
== Zabag Kingdom now Pampanga? LOL == |
|||
in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Filipino_people&diff=prev&oldid=600705874 this] revert I was intending to remove just [[Tim Tebow]], as my understanding is that he is not Filipino. I inadvertantly removed several others who are Filipino as well, though. I'll leave it to other editors to restore those photos if that is appropriate. It seems to me as if the addition ought to have gotten consensus here before being done. I haven't followed it, but hasn't there been quite a bit of "churn" in the infobox photos here? [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 08:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry but this definition of our ancient kingdom is infact true, we traded heavily with Japan and Ming China, but our kingdom was the same one ruled by Lakan Dula, it's capital being Tondo. Please correct other misleading information here... |
|||
==What's this Mestizo bias in the infobox?== |
|||
More information about the Kingdom of Luzon by researcher Mike Pangilinan: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/55459742891?view=doc&id=10150330487132892 (NOTE: This is a group lead by experts and researchers, I would copy and paste the article here but it's far too long)--[[Special:Contributions/70.134.91.223|70.134.91.223]] ([[User talk:70.134.91.223|talk]]) 01:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
So it's come to my attention that somebody keeps reverting my edits, and replacing them with every single random Mestizo Filipino they can find. Listen, there are like already four Mestizos in this infobox, and perhaps [[Muhammad Kudarat|Sultan Kudarat]]'s legitimacy comes to the fact that he was proclaimed a Philippine national hero by Ferdinand Marcos, probably the ONLY one as a native of Mindanao. |
|||
You might as well rename this article "Catholic Mestizos of Southeast Asia" if you are going to fill the infobox with 7/10 Mestizo Catholics. [[User:PacificWarrior101|PacificWarrior101]] ([[User talk:PacificWarrior101|talk]]) 05:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101 |
|||
== Sigh... == |
|||
Here we go again, same idiot reverting my changes in a pathetic attempt to make Filipinos look Hispanic. [[User:PacificWarrior101|PacificWarrior101]] ([[User talk:PacificWarrior101|talk]]) 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101 |
|||
The filipino people are not one ethnic group, we are actually a country of many nations, our different languages are not mere dialects, THEY ARE ACTUAL LANGUAGES.--[[Special:Contributions/70.134.91.223|70.134.91.223]] ([[User talk:70.134.91.223|talk]]) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== I Have Made Changes to the Images/Mosaic Discussion Section == |
|||
== pictures == |
|||
As you people have known, a huge edit war took place between I and some IP user from Britain, faking to be an embassy worker and a worker for the [[King of Spain]]. So here is a section, for discussions regarding the people on the mosaic and infobox simply to prevent another huge edit war from taking place. |
|||
I replaced two pictures by Magsaysay and Aquino respectively. They are more significant historical figures. -- [[Special:Contributions/112.205.51.84|112.205.51.84]] ([[User talk:112.205.51.84|talk]]) 07:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:That make-up of pictures looks less yellow-press-like now. -- [[Special:Contributions/112.205.51.84|112.205.51.84]] ([[User talk:112.205.51.84|talk]]) 09:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion == |
|||
So, I have added [[Muhammad Kudarat|Sultan Kudarat]] in favor of [[José María of Manila]], since is he the only Philippine national hero from the Moro region. Additionally I have also added [[Aleem Said Ahmad Basher|Said Basher]] albeit he is a national Islamic imam, in to accompany the existing Roman Catholic priests ([[Pedro Calungsod]] and [[Francisca del Espíritu Santo Fuentes]]). This equalizes it, two Roman Catholics and two Muslims. |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]] |
|||
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg|File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg]], has been nominated for speedy deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] for the following reason: ''Copyright violations'' |
|||
;What should I do? |
|||
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|||
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|||
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|||
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try [[commons:COM:UR|Commons Undeletion Request]] |
|||
Also, I have put [[Jesús A. Villamor]] since he was a prominent Filipino fighter during World War II. |
|||
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
== File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion == |
|||
Any opposing opinions, objections should be discussed on this section. [[User:PacificWarrior101|PacificWarrior101]] ([[User talk:PacificWarrior101|talk]]) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101 |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]] |
|||
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg|File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg]], has been nominated for speedy deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] for the following reason: ''Copyright violations'' |
|||
;What should I do? |
|||
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|||
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|||
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|||
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try [[commons:COM:UR|Commons Undeletion Request]] |
|||
== Regions with significant populations (2014-9 revision) == |
|||
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 04:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
Seeing a problem with some of the figures in this list, I [[WP:BOLD]]ly revised the whole list. For those who want to check out my changes, generally what I did was this: |
|||
== Lead para in the ''Genetic studies'' section == |
|||
#I located the latest "Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos" [http://www.cfo.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1340:stock-estimate-of-overseas-filipinos&catid=134 here]. It was the 2012 estimate [http://www.cfo.gov.ph/images/stories/pdf/StockEstimate2012.pdf here] |
|||
#I tried to verify each figure in the list using the source cited for it |
|||
#If I was able to verify the figure, I compared it with the Stock Estimate figure and made a judgement about which figure to use |
|||
#If I was not able to verify the figure in the list, I used the stock estimate figure |
|||
#I then manually sorted the list into order by the population figure |
|||
#I then compared the sorted list with figures in the 2012 stock estimate, adding entries from the stock estimate into the list (I added Singapore, Brunei, Macau, Jordan, Algeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, perhaps others, using "xx" for the inserted number of the item) |
|||
#I then renumbered the list items sequentially, removing items numbered higher than 35 from the list (the template currently displays only 32 entries) |
|||
There are some obvious problems with this |
|||
The opening sentence, beginning "The Philippine Government has never conducted any recent genetic study ..." was added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Filipino_people&diff=prev&oldid=357768910 this] April 2010 edit, with a have->has correction having been applied in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Filipino_people&diff=prev&oldid=360066971 this] edit in May 2010. It may be a [[WP:COPYPASTE]] from [http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Filipinos::sub::Genetic_Studies this] web page (or the reverse may be true -- I don't know). At a minimum, the wording here needs to be improved. Actually, I think the article would be better if this were to be simply removed; what the RP government has or has not done in this regard is not of central significance to the article topic, and the assertion re small sample sizes in the latter parts of this [[run-on sentence]] is unsupported and looks like a POV insinuation that the mentioned studies are unreliable. The second sentence of the para was added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Filipino_people&diff=prev&oldid=367674556 this] June 2010 edit along with the supporting cite, which could be seen as a link promoting a product. I wouldn't call the link addition [[WP:LINKSPAM]], but I do question how much value its presence adds to the article, and to what extent it supports the assertion to which it is attached. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* Using the stock guide figure counts only [[Philippine Overseas Employment Administration|POEA]] Filipinos in a country. This is probably close to correct for most countries, and wildly incorrect for some countries. |
|||
* Figures from some other sources are problematic. For example, the Australia figure is for persons in Australia who were born in the Philippines. This miscounts non-filipinos born in the Philippines who happen to reside in Australia as Filipinos, and miscounts Filipinos born in Australia as non-filipinos. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Move discussion in progress== |
|||
:The Museum of Learning Website is a mirror of Wikipedia so it's not a copyvio. See disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Anyway I individually checked each assertion and their supporting references with the following evaluation: |
|||
There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Belizean people#Requested move 2 April 2015 |Talk:Belizean people]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Belizean people crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 12:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::*[http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Philippines/default.aspx Ref 52] is almost certainly promotional and should be deleted. |
|||
::*[http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200214/000020021402A0326100.php Ref 53] is a study on Taiwanese aborigines not Filipinos. |
|||
::*[http://www.physorg.com/news130761648.html Ref 54] discusses Austronesian migrations rather than Filipinos specifically. |
|||
::*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11916003?dopt=Abstract Ref 55] is also generalized and actually points out that Taiwanese aborigines share more genetic similarity to Filipinos and Indonesians and less with Thais and Chinese. Current wording is inaccurate. It also deals with Taiwanese aborigines rather than Filipinos. |
|||
::*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12541330?dopt=Abstract Ref 56] uses a sample size of only 50 individuals each for Luzon and Cebu. |
|||
::*[http://books.google.com/books?id=HuRcAyXWJxIC&pg=PA165&dq=dental+complex&sig=DLgOFSTm0uoEvkUoJk_eKZO3jYk#v=onepage&q=dental%20complex&f=false Ref 57] is a very generalized research using a sample size of 150-300 for each ''region''. Which means the source discusses the entirety of Southeast Asia not the Philippines specifically. We do not even know if there are any Filipinos in the sample. |
|||
::*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235276/ Ref 58] uses a sample size of only 28 individuals. |
|||
:I agree that second sentence with the link to the advertising site should be deleted, but I disagree that the first sentence in the lead is misleading and POV. It is quite true if you look at the sources. I would agree to its deletion if and only if some of the assertions in the section are also removed, namely those from Ref 56 and Ref 58 which ''does'' use a sample size that is waaay too small to be of any real significance. 100 and 28 individuals respectively can not ever give an accurate portrait of the genetic diversity of 92 ''million'' people.-- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#c5c9d2">♠</span>n</span>]] [[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#c5c9d2">Soul</span>]]</span>''' 04:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not a statistician, but I see that [http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html this tool] says that the ideal sample size for a population of 92 million would be 385 for a 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level, that a sample size of 100 gives a 9.8% margin of error, 50 gives 13.86%, and 28 gives 18.52%. Rather than treating the studies completely accurate vs. totally useless, perhaps it would be a good idea to add info re sample sizes and margins of error. |
|||
:::For a general survey from a homogenous population maybe. Calculating samples for genetic studies are a bit more complex than that, especially for a heterogenous archipelagic population. Samples from Luzon and Cebu alone are not widespread enough to avoid [[hasty generalization]] and sampling bias. Even the studies cited do not specifically discuss the results in such a way that it would warrant treating the studies as conclusive for the rest of the Filipino population. |
|||
:::And all of those studies except for one are of Southeast Asian peoples in general, not specifically Filipinos. Unless we can find new studies that specifically aimed to study the genetic history of Filipinos, we have to provide a warning per [[WP:DUE]] that these studies are by no means representative of the entire Filipino population. Either we retain the lead paragraph for that reason or we give a more accurate discussion of each study (including providing the sample sizes for each) and remove those which are derived from more generalized studies. -- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#c5c9d2">♠</span>n</span>]] [[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#c5c9d2">Soul</span>]]</span>''' 08:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, I've looked at [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html this] but let's go a bit further down the road. |
|||
:::*Re the para supported by ref 53, if I understand what the paper says, it sufficiently supports the assertion "Genetic data found among a sampling of Filipinos may indicate some relation to the Ami tribe of Taiwan." |
|||
:::*Re the para supported by ref 54, the cited source (a secondary source, not the study itself -- which I have not seen) does not seem to support "from the Philippines". Without that, it seems to be not relevant to this article. |
|||
:::*Re the para supported by ref 55 , the cited source seems to support the assertion, "A 2002 China Medical University study indicated that some Filipinos shared genetic chromosome that is found among Asian people, such as Taiwanese aborigines, Indonesians, Thais, and Chinese." |
|||
:::*Re the para supported by ref 56, it has English language problems. It apparently speaks of one study, not "A variety of research study" and I'm not sure whether "genetic chromosome were found" speaks of a single chromosome or several chromosomes, but it does say, " The predominant genotype detected was SC, the Southeast Asian genotype". |
|||
:::*Re the para supported by cite 57 (I've fleshed out that cite), the page cited does not appear to support the assertion to which it is attached, but look at the bottom of [http://books.google.com/books?id=HuRcAyXWJxIC&pg=PA274 page 274]. |
|||
:::*Re the para supported by cite 58, the item cited is the same item cited by cite 53; the item cited supports the assertion, "it was stated that 3.6% European introgression out of 28 samples was evident in the Philippines.: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
::::I can not access page 274. :( Nonetheless, I would support any changes that would specify the scope of the studies more accurately (and remove those which can not be verified). If we can manage that, I'd have no problems with removing the lead para. -- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#c5c9d2">♠</span>n</span>]] [[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#c5c9d2">Soul</span>]]</span>''' 10:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I guess the point here is that while those studies can prove genetic interrelationships with other populations, they can not be treated as comprehensive treatments of the entire population. i.e. we can't use them to say that "All Filipinos are more related to this or that population" or "All Filipinos have % genetic history from this or that population". And there should be a means to put that point across.-- '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#c5c9d2">♠</span>n</span>]] [[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#c5c9d2">Soul</span>]]</span>''' 11:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't know what your access problem might be with p.275; it works for me ([http://books.google.com/books?id=HuRcAyXWJxIC&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false]). Re not saying that the genetic relationships described by the studies apply to (every individual in) the entire Filipino population, I don't read the section as asserting that. With the exceptions noted above I do read the section, para by para, as asserting what I have described above. WP practices (with which I personally do not agree on this particular point) currently allow excision of information and supporting citations in articles which, though it comes from sources generally considered reliable for an article topic, is determined by consensus of article editors to be untrue. Given that, I suggest, following on my analysis above, that the lead para of the section and the para supported by cite number 54 be removed and the rest of the section left as it is (as far as the impact of this discussion goes). What say you? [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 03:54, 29 August 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Filipino people redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Revert adding sports figures to the infobox photo
[edit]in this revert I was intending to remove just Tim Tebow, as my understanding is that he is not Filipino. I inadvertantly removed several others who are Filipino as well, though. I'll leave it to other editors to restore those photos if that is appropriate. It seems to me as if the addition ought to have gotten consensus here before being done. I haven't followed it, but hasn't there been quite a bit of "churn" in the infobox photos here? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What's this Mestizo bias in the infobox?
[edit]So it's come to my attention that somebody keeps reverting my edits, and replacing them with every single random Mestizo Filipino they can find. Listen, there are like already four Mestizos in this infobox, and perhaps Sultan Kudarat's legitimacy comes to the fact that he was proclaimed a Philippine national hero by Ferdinand Marcos, probably the ONLY one as a native of Mindanao.
You might as well rename this article "Catholic Mestizos of Southeast Asia" if you are going to fill the infobox with 7/10 Mestizo Catholics. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Here we go again, same idiot reverting my changes in a pathetic attempt to make Filipinos look Hispanic. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I Have Made Changes to the Images/Mosaic Discussion Section
[edit]As you people have known, a huge edit war took place between I and some IP user from Britain, faking to be an embassy worker and a worker for the King of Spain. So here is a section, for discussions regarding the people on the mosaic and infobox simply to prevent another huge edit war from taking place.
So, I have added Sultan Kudarat in favor of José María of Manila, since is he the only Philippine national hero from the Moro region. Additionally I have also added Said Basher albeit he is a national Islamic imam, in to accompany the existing Roman Catholic priests (Pedro Calungsod and Francisca del Espíritu Santo Fuentes). This equalizes it, two Roman Catholics and two Muslims.
Also, I have put Jesús A. Villamor since he was a prominent Filipino fighter during World War II.
Any opposing opinions, objections should be discussed on this section. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Regions with significant populations (2014-9 revision)
[edit]Seeing a problem with some of the figures in this list, I WP:BOLDly revised the whole list. For those who want to check out my changes, generally what I did was this:
- I located the latest "Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos" here. It was the 2012 estimate here
- I tried to verify each figure in the list using the source cited for it
- If I was able to verify the figure, I compared it with the Stock Estimate figure and made a judgement about which figure to use
- If I was not able to verify the figure in the list, I used the stock estimate figure
- I then manually sorted the list into order by the population figure
- I then compared the sorted list with figures in the 2012 stock estimate, adding entries from the stock estimate into the list (I added Singapore, Brunei, Macau, Jordan, Algeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, perhaps others, using "xx" for the inserted number of the item)
- I then renumbered the list items sequentially, removing items numbered higher than 35 from the list (the template currently displays only 32 entries)
There are some obvious problems with this
- Using the stock guide figure counts only POEA Filipinos in a country. This is probably close to correct for most countries, and wildly incorrect for some countries.
- Figures from some other sources are problematic. For example, the Australia figure is for persons in Australia who were born in the Philippines. This miscounts non-filipinos born in the Philippines who happen to reside in Australia as Filipinos, and miscounts Filipinos born in Australia as non-filipinos.
But then, we're looking for reasonable estimates with source support, not exact headcount figures. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)